Response to interpellation 2022/23:407 on the Labour Market Council
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L argues that the parties in the labor market possess important knowledge and that the government has extensive talks with them 1 2 3. The labor market policy council creates a new forum to discuss lessons with academia 1. 3 L stands behind the Swedish model and argues that progress requires political judgment and cooperation with the parties 3. 4 L argues that they are open to the parties and believe that they appreciate the government's inflation fight and energy policy 4. 5 6 S criticizes that the parties are excluded from the council and argues that this sends a signal that the parties are not important 5 6. 7 S considers that the parties are those who see changes most quickly and that the council becomes limited without their perspective 7. 8 S argues that the government does not deliver on agreements and undermines the Swedish model 8. 9 S questions the quality of the government's dialogue with the parties and expresses concern that the government is pushing the parties away 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Mr. Speaker! I have been asked whether I do not consider that the parties in the labor market possess knowledge of how the market is affected in a recession and how we reduce long-term unemployment, and whether I intend to take any initiatives in light of the fact that we have a tradition of listening to the parties in the labor market.
The parties in the labor market possess important knowledge about the labor market. That is also the reason why the government often meets them in various contexts.
Through the labor market policy council, there is now a forum for me to repeatedly meet the academy and conduct a discussion regarding lessons learned concerning labor market policy measures. Such a context has not existed previously.
Some authorities are also represented in the council. This is partly due to their expertise in the field, partly because they implement and evaluate the government's policies, but also because, just as I do, they listen to and gather knowledge from the collective expertise.
When the interpellator reported that he was prevented from attending the meeting, the first deputy speaker granted that Sofia Amloh instead was allowed to participate in the debate.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! When Minister for Employment Johan Pehrson announced on June 7 that he was convening a labor market policy council, quite a few of us assumed that the council would consist of representatives from the parties. The council has the task of making proposals on how the labor market is affected in a recession and how long-term unemployment is reduced. But there is no representation from the parties in the labor market policy council. It is a mystery to me, and after the answer here today, I still question what the Minister for Employment's intentions are.
The Swedish labor market model has been incredibly successful. Actually, it is nothing strange, because the employer and the employee fundamentally have a common interest in that things go well for Sweden and the own organization. There is no contradiction between competitive companies and decent working conditions. They are, on the contrary, dependent on each other. To find the best balance between the needs and interests of employers, employees, and society is the Swedish model's fundamental task. I want to go as far as to say that the Swedish model is an expression of something of the most beautiful we have in Sweden.
The model is a foundation for the Swedish labor market. Most agree that the model serves us well and plays a decisive role for Sweden's prosperity and international competitiveness. A sign that the Swedish model is successful is that there is a great international interest in how Sweden organizes its labor market. Many times, there is even a rather large envy regarding how we have succeeded.
The balance is to achieve real wage increases and simultaneously strengthen Sweden's international competitiveness. Here, the so-called industrial agreement has played a very important role. It came at a time when wages and inflation were spiraling. After the agreement was signed, it has served as the norm for wage formation across the entire labor market, and real wages have generally increased. We have also had significantly fewer labor market policy conflicts than before and compared to other countries. This type of consensus with positive effects for society, employers, and employees is the hallmark of the Swedish model.
The model needs to be developed to meet society's many and new challenges. The labor market in the 2020s is definitely different from what it was in 1938 when the Saltsjöbad Agreement was signed. Long-term trends such as globalization, digitalization, and the emergence of new industries have an impact. The model has been tested to and fro over time, but regardless of what the challenges have looked like, it has always stood strong. The time we are in now is no exception.
Why does the Minister for Employment have a need to exclude the parties and depart from the order of the Swedish labor market since the 1930s by excluding the unions and the employers in the appointed labor market policy council?
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is good that the Minister for Employment intends to gather experts on labor market policy to better meet the challenges and the developments we see in today's labor market. But both representatives for the trade union movement and the employers' organizations, i.e., the parties in the labor market, are very critical that the Minister does not want to include them in his expert council. They have used words such as provocative, insane, and strange to describe what they think about the Minister's decision. Representatives for the parties wonder how the Minister is to obtain a holistic picture when he leaves those who have real experience of today's challenges in the labor market outside. The council will be limited without the parties.
I can only agree with the criticism. The parties in the Swedish labor market are those who most quickly see changes within different industries, and they know what is needed in the workplaces and what works. They would contribute an important perspective in such an expert council. One should also not forget that the parties have come to play an increasingly important role and have taken a great responsibility when it comes to changes in labor market policy in recent years. The establishment jobs and the transition study support would never have been put in place without the parties' negotiations.
The parties have done their part, but more and more people are wondering if the government will actually deliver its part. LO's criticism is the harshest. It is argued that the government is happy to speak warmly about the Swedish model in the labor market, where unions and employers take responsibility for the conditions, but that the government in practice does not safeguard the Swedish model. LO also considers the cooperation between the parties and the government to be insufficient.
How does the Minister for Employment view the criticism from both the trade union movement and employer organizations regarding the composition of the Labor Market Council?
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that there is such a great interest in the fact that at some occasions per year I meet with academics who evaluate and comment on the effectiveness and power of the Swedish labor market policy. In the large circle around the labor market policy, we collectively use 80 billion of the taxpayers' resources - all to maintain Sweden as a fantastic welfare country and with the intention of increasing the prosperity and self-sufficiency for individual people so that they receive increased freedom.
I hear that there is concern about me meeting these researchers, docents, and professors. But there is no need to be, because in parallel, the government has recurring meetings with the parties. Since I took office, we have met with the parties almost every week, and we have very good conversations.
We have had strong ties during the Swedish presidency of the EU, and there we face great challenges, for example when it comes to the social pillar, which is so important for creating decent living conditions for citizens all around Europe, not least in the labor market. Here, Sweden has a completely different solution, because we believe that the parties take their responsibility in an excellent way. We have met with the parties before and during the EU meetings, and we continue to meet with the parties to hear what lessons they have drawn from the presidency and what we should take forward at the European level. It is a very important cooperation.
We value the Swedish model very highly. We believe that employers and employees together can many times better meet the challenges that exist, and we have seen several successful reforms in recent years. They will take some time to implement, which has been clear from the beginning, but they are a very good step forward. I am thinking, for example, of the large transition support which became a consequence of accepting and making modernizations, improvements, and updates to, for example, LAS in a package.
We continue to have this contact, because it is important. But it is not hindered by the fact that I, in my role as Minister for Employment and Integration, meet with academics and call it a labor market policy council. If one feels that it is a kind of restriction, then I believe that one has a very low confidence in the importance of the Swedish model in yesterday, today, and in the future.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I am becoming more inquisitive about the Minister's intentions, which I initiated this debate by calling for. I thought that perhaps there were greater ambitions and intentions with this labor market council than that the Minister should get to meet experts in the field. Perhaps it could be done without making decisions on a labor market policy council, I think. Perhaps there should be a bit more weight in this council by gathering all the expertise to achieve something and not just have conversations. I believe we have somewhat different intentions and ambitions when we see this type of proposal.
Sweden has a unique position when it comes to the regulation of the labor market. Here, the parties in the labor market take a great responsibility together with politics. We have a proud tradition of listening to the parties in matters concerning the labor market.
Against that background, this should be placed in a larger context and a larger perspective, for example when it comes to the establishment jobs. When the parties have negotiated, done the heavy lifting, shaken hands, signed, and submitted it to the ministry, then the politics does not deliver. This also applies to what the Minister himself brings up, namely the transition study support. The LAS negotiations that were made under political pressure resulted in a historically new main agreement. Oh, what was negotiated. There was a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, but an agreement was reached. The parties reached an agreement, and they signed. They did it. But where is the government that rules now? There is no transition study support in the sense that it was actually signed for. Where is the money for CSN to enable those funds? Right now, they are burning inside. To then say that one safeguards the Swedish model, I think is a bit of a stretch.
I do not think it would have been such a big issue with the labor market council if one had delivered on what I mentioned earlier. But now, one chooses to add yet another thing to the order by precisely cutting away that part of the labor market. Either it is a profound ignorance of how it works, or it is so bad that it is a deliberate signal that the minister wants to send to the labor market parties as a marking that Svenskt Näringsliv and the unions should not sit at the table when experts are to discuss how the Swedish labor market should be managed in the future? I actually do not know which is worse.
Regardless, we can add another active action from the government that undermines the collective bargaining model which is so important for an orderly labor market. Perhaps that is what makes the matter a bit more serious than the Minister wants to give the impression of.
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I am not worried that the Minister is meeting the academy, but I am worried about the signals it sends regarding the government's view on the Swedish model for the Swedish labor market. When the Minister so clearly has a reluctance to involve the parties, it signals that the parties are not so important. It is, as my colleague Sofia Amloh has just spoken about, not the first time the government sends such signals. It creates concern, not only among us Social Democrats but also among the parties.
The Minister says in his reply to the interpellator that the parties have important knowledge about the labor market and that they are therefore met in various contexts. We must also assume that the Minister has an ongoing dialogue with the authorities that are included in the council, but that does not exclude them from being part of the expert council.
In my previous remark, I highlighted the criticism coming from the parties that cooperation is not sufficient between the government and the parties, not least considering the large role they actually play in the issue of the regulation of the labor market.
Why, in that case, does cooperation and dialogue not occur in a more structured and continuous manner? Given the important knowledge that trade unions and employer organizations have regarding the labor market here and now, they would contribute important perspectives to an expert council. Appointing representatives from the parties to the expert council would also show that the Minister for Employment understands and appreciates the Swedish model. It is something that, at the current time, I find it difficult to see that the Minister for Employment actually does.
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Mr. Speaker! The proof of this must lie in how we progress with the political decisions that are so important for the parties. If one stands close to the parties, the government and a responsible Riksdag are helped, for example, in combating inflation—the inflation that makes wage earners and the other part of the parties, that is, the companies and the employers, poorer. Sweden becomes poorer with the high inflation. I can assure you that we have extensive talks with both parts of those we call the parties. It is incredibly important that we get out of this.
I am glad that the Social Democrats here collectively say that one is not afraid to talk to academia and that it is reasonable to do so. I have a list here. I do not know if the Speaker wants me to read out all the dates when I have met the parties, but it concerns meetings with SKR, Svenskt Näringsliv, LO, Unionen, TCO, Akademikerförbundet SSR, PTK, Almega Utbildningsföretagen, Kommunal, Fackförbundet ST, the unions in welfare, Vårdförbundet, Vision, Sveriges Ingenjörer, Teknikföretagen, all the labor market parties, IF Metall, Trygghetsrådet - I could go on for as long as I want. This cannot be a self-harming behavior that I engage in. We meet the parties because we like the parties and listen to them.
Mr. Speaker! I understand that this is, at best, an expression of a feverish opposition and, at worst, misconceptions that I must help the Social Democrats out of. The Swedish government and the Liberals stand behind the Swedish model and like the Swedish model. We have even been instrumental in developing the Swedish model. I am also pleased to hear here that the steps forward, from the fundamental Saltsjöbaden Agreement to the latest major change that is sometimes called the Saltsjöbaden Agreement 2, have required both political judgment and will, and a cooperation with the parties where we feel that we must do something and that we do it best together. So shall it remain as long as I have anything to say about it.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I am still not entirely clear on exactly which answers the Minister expects to emerge during the meetings with the labor market policy council. I believe that in every exchange of remarks so far, the Minister has spoken about having conversations, meetings, and dialogue scheduled with the parties. It is perhaps not quite this that we question, but rather what these conversations mean or contain, and whether there is any substance or quality when they meet.
Neither of the parties, LO and Svenskt Näringsliv, seem to be particularly satisfied so far with the government's job policy. My colleague previously referred to the many reactions so far. I personally think one of the headlines from Svenskt Näringsliv this spring is clear. It reads: "I wonder what the government's job policy is", which is telling as to what the parties think about the dialogue that the minister refers to.
The Minister for Employment does not believe that the parties have the answer on how long-term unemployment should be reduced or how the labor market is affected by a recession, but rather a council with academics is needed to provide the Minister answers. That is how I interpret this debate. This is, for me, like a business council without the business community, and I become concerned when the government so clearly brushes the parties aside.
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Mr. Speaker! Our embrace is just as open. It can become a bit over 180 degrees with the arms outstretched. So large and open is the embrace for the Swedish parties.
It is asked what kind of answer it is, but there are no answers to give. It would be incredibly great if the Social Democrats in opposition had answers to everything, but they do not have them at all. Then we would not have the situation we have. We would reach the lowest unemployment in Europe, but it became one of the highest. Now we are up in the third highest in Europe, according to the latest figures. So well those answers went.
One must be a bit humble and be prepared to listen to others, and that is where the academy in Sweden comes in. That might be the difference between us. As a liberal, I believe in science and research and that one can learn. Then, one cannot do everything that the researchers say all the time. There must be a political context, and sometimes one must compromise. It is this that is so fantastic about the parties – that one succeeds in doing this.
I believe that the parties appreciate inflation fighting and a modern, forward-looking energy policy that saves jobs in Sweden. I believe that they appreciate that we ensure good conditions are created for Swedish entrepreneurship that generates new jobs. This applies to both large companies and smaller companies. They make use of the public support and measures that we carry out with the taxpayers' money, and they are used in an effective way.
It is the citizens and community builders who work hard and who go to work every day, regardless of whether they work in the important public sector or in a small business. They eat porridge, go to work and ensure that prosperity is created, and we stand on their side. We do this with open arms for the parties. We do not always think alike, but very often we do. And very often the parties take a responsibility in Sweden that is actually unique in the world, as the interpellants say. It is what the interpellants are grateful for, and it is I as well.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.